On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 03:26:50PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Andreas Barth <aba@ayous.org> writes:
>
> > You think it's worse than just orphan the package now and/or ask the DPL
> > to choose a new maintainer? (I would say it's the least agressive one of
> > the variants that do require a change of the maintainer, as Matthias has
> > some say of the new maintainer team as long as it's a team but YMMV. Of
> > course, it's not nice. But no of the options is nice.)
>
> I suppose it depends on how you look at it, but if I were being forcibly
> overridden in opinions about Python maintenance, I'd want the people
> overriding me to take responsibility for the whole thing, rather than
> continuing to make it my responsibility. But either way that's an option,
> so I don't feel very strongly about it.
FWIW, I'm not particularly keen of the option "delegate the choice to
the DPL" either. Although, if that would be the winning option and if it
would be me the DPL having to implement it (both are significant IF-s),
I'll be ready to abide to it.
The reason is that the tech-ctte is the highest decision body in Debian.
I've always considered unfortunate that this issue has been escalated to
the tech-ctte before attempting some more middle-ground options, such as
asking the DPL or others to mediate. But given that the issue *has* been
escalated up to the tech-ctte, pushing it "down" to the DPL at the end
of a long process would probably give the impression of unwillingness to
decide.
Just my 0.02€,
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences ...... http://upsilon.cc/zack ...... . . o
Debian Project Leader ....... @zack on identi.ca ....... o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature